Texas Health and Human Services Commission Public Meeting

Health and Human Services Commission - Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program Regional Advisory Committee - Region 3 Fort Worth Service Area

Texas Health and Human Services
AGENDA:

Council on Children and Families

Jan. 7, 2011
9 a.m. to 5 p.m.

Meeting Site:
John H. Winters Building
Public Hearing Room 125
701 W. 51st St.
Austin

Welcome and Introductions

Review and Discussion of Council’s First Year of Work

Discussion of Implementation Options for Council’s Initial Strategic Priorities<

Public Comment

Discussion on Future Priorities

Identification of Next Steps

Adjournment

Contact: Sherri Hammack, Lead Support Staff for Council on Children and Families, Health and Human Services Commission, 1106 Clayton Ln, Suite 225E, Austin, 512-420-2858, sherri.hammack@hhsc.state.tx.us.

This meeting is open to the public. No reservations are required and there is no cost to attend this meeting.

People with disabilities who wish to attend the meeting and require auxiliary aids or services should contact Cassandra Marx at 512-420-2857 at least 72 hours before the meeting so appropriate arrangements can be made.

The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?

The Truth Bites "NH": Matt Barrington from the NH Department of Health and Human Services - the Reimbursment Unit (RU) - Falsification in Offical Matters or Simply Untrained in ethics?

The following matter developed in Nashua District Court (11/09) when a defendant signed a consented to order to reimburse the state for services that their child allegedly received, and agreed to have their pay garnished, through pay roll deducted based on the statement of Matt Barrington that there was an existing past due order.

The Defendant was finally able to review their file in the District Court (2/10), it showed there were no existing orders. And upon review of the law under NH RSA 169-C:27 I (c), the right to recover was for 279 weeks NOT 627 that the defendant signed for. Moreover, that the federal government had paid 75% another party to the case had been paying on the account for several years and none of this was disclosed on the bill of $22,000 in fact evidence showed that both divorced parents were being charged for the exact same bill. And that one party's attorney was paid for for two years actually against the law, but signed by Judge Bamberger for the non-accused for parent.

Meanwhile DHHS through their reimbursement department, did not attach the defendants pay and then went to court to hold the defendant in contempt.

On 11/18/10 Judge Leary held the defendant in contempt but stated the defendant was correct about the reimbursements department right to a limited recovery time.

Here's the catch, the order of contempt does not state the $$$ dollar amount or indicate how long restitution is for. The defendant put in a motion to correct the defect and the answer was still uniforming - so the defendant moved to appeal to the Superior Court. The clerk of court never signed the order so instead of 30 days to appeal all the discrepancy's and being over charged not just in weeks but by 75% (due to TANF and other grant applications against it), and an additional undisclosed party's payments. The right to recovery is questionable because the case was sent over by a marital master. Under the rules for marital master 12-14 there was suppose to be a show cause hearing there was not and etc.

In any case the matter is part of the civil case in the post of 1/5/11.

THE REAL ISSUE: Matt Barrington sent a letter to the DEFENDANTS place of work on 12/7/11 and attached the order of 11/09., to attach their pay and Identified the collection as a child support regional procedure. To be paid after the defendants real child support was paid in the first instance.

Falsification in an Official Matter or ........ you tell us your thoughts feel free to do so anonymously.

Massachusetts (Connor B. v. Patrick) — Children’s Rights

Massachusetts (Connor B. v. Patrick) — Children’s Rights


Citing one of the nation’s highest rates of abuse of children in foster care and other persistent and severe problems throughout the Massachusetts child welfare system, the national advocacy group Children’s Rights and Boston law firm Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP – with the support of advocates and families throughout the state — filed a class action in federal court on April 15, 2010, seeking broad reform on behalf of 8,500 abused and neglected children statewide.
Naming six child plaintiffs who have been badly harmed in Massachusetts foster care, the lawsuit (known as Connor B. v. Patrick) charges the state’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) with violating the constitutional rights of children by routinely placing them in dangerous and unstable situations once removed from their parents’ care and failing to take necessary actions to meet the legal and moral obligation of the state-run child welfare system to ensure the safety and well-being of children in its custody.
According to the children’s complaint, the rate at which children in Massachusetts foster care suffer abuse in state-supervised foster homes and institutions is nearly four times the national standard. DCF further traumatizes children by moving them frequently between foster placements; one-third of children in state foster care get shuffled around to at least five different placements during their time in state custody, according to the complaint. The complaint also points to the state’s decade-long failure to adequately prepare and support families to be successfully reunified with their children in foster care.

NH Gov. Corruption-NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics

NH INSIDER- Your Source for NH Politics - Guest Blogs - NH Gov. Corruption
NH Gov. Corruption

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2010 AT 03:23PM
My case is going to prove how deep the rot goes in the NH Government. I must continue to speak to publicize what these people really care about: Political Influence. We have an Ex-Chief of Police, Pickering, who would force two attorneys, Jennifer Haskell and Stanley Hawthorne to feign a breakdown in communication to abandon me days before important hearings and offer no referals. We have Pickering forcing Haskel to sign a bogus affidavit, which is now deleted/destroyed feigning I knew of no continuance so that Pickering, for the second time, could falsely arrest me before a custody hearing. We have GAL Mullen filling in for another GAL who withdrew because she was most likely approached to abandon me. We have me being accosted before the second custody hearing by two men with a bearknife as a silent threat as I waited for a taxi in Conway. We have a report by DCYF that didn't speak to a parents many neglect inquiries or past drug use but instead spoke to accusing me of having an issue with Pickering, an effort to gangup on me. We have a Washington state CPS worker who's every report said I was uncooperative in every coorespondence. They are investigating her office currently as well. We have Judge albee stating during court, to no one in particular "Don't go to the media"! We have my son in a coma and the mother found guilty of Physical Neglect. We have Brodeur penning a letter early on saying "you had better worry about the charges (bogus) against you as opposed to charges against Pickering". We have Colantuono supposedly watching to make sure court was as it should have been and his letter says "everything is legal". Law Enforcement can look to NH Goverment to look the other way and allow malfeasance of the sickest kind. I WILL LIVE FREE OR DIE and if your name appears in this piee and you want to meet me in a court OUTSIDE of your snakepit, BRING IT! If I seem bitter it is because I am, nobody is going to treat me and my children like this. Ayotte, you were contacted from day one, 2006 and you did nothing to stop this Fraud and Conspiracy, was it for the Law Enforcement vote? The words I have for you when I see you across a courtroom will be very ghetto......

Michael Holman

DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW-Civil Rights Division Home Page

Civil Rights Division Home Page
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW

Summary:

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Document Title IV-A funding

Document Title IV-A.rtf

Social Security, Welfare, and Child Support Enforcement

How federal welfare funding drives judicial discretion in child-custody determinations and domestic relations matters.

Get Back to the Nationwide Blueprint for Title IV-D Reform (CSE Reform)



By Lary Holland and Jason Bottomley

February 2006



Introduction

There is a growing pandemic in this country where the very fabric of our society, the family, is being attacked and destroyed. Our children are systematically being torn away from willing and capable parents who want to be involved in parenting their children. Families are systematically being torn apart instead of being helped when they turn to the states' family courts to solve domestic relations disputes. This document demonstrates an attempt to trace this problem back to its source.



The topics and issues being discussed are quite complex because of the nature of the multiple welfare programs created within Title IV of the Social Security Act (SSA); so the authors have attempted to provide a simplified overview of how federal welfare funding motivates the state family court judges to remove a willful parent and create high child support orders.



The authors have spent a tremendous amount of time researching external economic factors that they believe drive judicial discretion and influence professional judgment in domestic relations matters. Through their research and experience, the authors have concluded that a relationship exists between the federal funding of state welfare programs and the determinations made by state family court judges presiding over child-custody and domestic relations matters. They believe that it is this relationship that de-emphasizes the importance of sharing parental responsibility, and instead emphasizes a manufactured public policy concerned only on the financial obligations of one parent - rather than on the real interests of the children involved.



The authors have also concluded that, while this relationship has successfully been masked behind what is commonly termed "the best interests of the child," the federal funding created within the Social Security Act provides clear monetary incentives to states that have a high-occurrence of one-parent households, where a child has the majority of access to only one of their parents. The authors believe that this "best interests of the child" standard is loosely subjective, gives unlimited discretion to state family court judges, and ultimately leaves a tremendous amount of room for abuse.



In simplest terms: State family courts are forcibly depriving children's access to a parent because it is a source of revenue for the states - and because they can.



Social Security Covers Welfare

The most basic component of the federal welfare system was originally created by the Social Security Act with the intent of providing assistance to families in which the parent who financially supported the family was absent due to death, or where a disability prevented that parent from providing for the family. Unfortunately, the welfare system has shifted away from providing assistance to needy families into a system of entitlement and abuse by both the state and the welfare recipient.



Welfare programs are a combined effort between federal and state government. Federal welfare programs impose voluntary guidelines on the states and provide block grant funding for compliance. These block grants similarly resemble how the states' are granted federal funding for enacting motorcycle-helmet and motor vehicle seat-belt legislation or risk losing substantial federal highway repair dollars. States are not required to participate in the federal welfare programs created within Social Security; state participation is strictly voluntary - but by not participating, the state is turning down extremely large sums of federal money.



Title IV (four) of the Social Security Act consists of four parts (A, B, D, and E) and provides for the annual appropriation of block grant funding to subsidize the operation of various state-level welfare programs as outlined in each part of the title as long as the states are compliant to the federal guidelines.



Title IV, Part A (or IV-A) is the most widely recognized welfare program, and is referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.



Formerly known as AFDC, the TANF welfare program imposes federal guidelines to which all states must adhere in order to receive billions of dollars in federal block grant funding. This money is only available to a state when that state fully or substantially complies with these federally imposed guidelines. The complying individual states can use the money they receive to pay for the administration of their own programs, and to provide cash assistance to "needy" families pursuant to the federal guidelines.



The type of program described in Title IV-A is referred to as an entitlement program at both the state and welfare recipient level because it entitles the complying states to receive blocks of grant money, and it entitles the recipients who qualify to receive a certain amount of money as well.



Eligibility Requirements in Title IV-A (TANF) Exclude the Middle-Class

Eligibility must be proven in order to receive services and cash assistance through the IV-A TANF welfare program. The eligibility requirement, which uses income level as an indicator to demonstrate need, limits program participation to families with dependent children that show an actual need for income assistance. Not every person is eligible to receive cash assistance benefits and services through the TANF welfare program, and sometimes eligibility is limited to only the children of "needy" families.



Paternity establishment is one requirement, except in limited circumstances, that determines continuing eligibility of benefits to a recipient. If paternity is not already established or paternity is not actively being sought by the recipient, the recipient s portion of any cash assistance is reduced or even completely discontinued. If paternity is successfully established, the recipient is required to surrender and assign to the state any child support benefits established by court order.



Other eligibility requirements provide restrictions to the duration of Title IV-A benefits to 5 years and mandatory requirements for recipients to participate in certain work activities. Also, if the recipient is an un-emancipated minor with a child, the minor must be involved in schooling and be under the supervision of a responsible adult.



Welfare Reform

In the eyes of many, including Congress, the IV-A TANF welfare program has been widely abused since its inception. People have been known to alter their living conditions to fit the eligibility requirements in order to receive the cash assistance offered by the program. Abuse has prompted Congress to reform the entire Title IV welfare system by modifying the federal guidelines, changing how the states operate welfare programs - including who is eligible and for how long benefits may be received.



Attempts by Congress to reform welfare have caused the spurious growth of new and expanded programs within Title IV. In addition to other programs, Title IV currently includes a Child Support and Establishment of Paternity welfare program in Part D (Title IV-D).



The federal Title IV-D program makes large sums of grant money available to the states through the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE). In Fiscal Year 2006, Congress appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) for the states that operate programs in accordance with federal guidelines.



Child Support Enforcement is a Welfare Program

The purpose for the creation of the IV-D welfare program was to recover taxpayer money which was being spent by the federal government on needy families under Title IV-A (TANF). The intent of Congress was to slow the drain that the Title IV-A (TANF) cash assistance program had on the budget. The presumption was that single mothers with a high incidence of out-of-wedlock births were the proximate cause of the rising welfare expenditures. Congress attempted to shift the financial burden from their own budget to the parent who abandoned the family.



The result of Congress' intention was the creation of Title IV-D federally mandated guidelines, incentive block grants, and performance based grants being made available to the states for their operation of federally compliant programs. States that would comply with the federal guidelines made it a priority to collect money (termed as "child support") from willfully absent parents who had abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The goal was twofold: To reimburse the expense of providing public assistance to children who had been willfully abandoned by a parent (and thus forced to become dependent on public assistance to satisfy basic needs), and to ensure continued financial support from willfully absent parents with children that were at risk of requiring public assistance if they didn t receive support (to prevent them from requiring public assistance to satisfy basic needs).



In essence, the federal guidelines wanted the states to function as collection agencies, recovering financial support from parents who had willfully abandoned their parental responsibilities to their children. The result, however, was different from the intent and has caused the state welfare programs to adjust their environment to have a greater need, which has caused the program to collect from willing parents that would ordinarily provide a loving environment for their children absent a court order limiting a parent's involvement. Despite the original intent of the IV-D welfare program, it now provides an incentive for the states to use their family courts to produce forcibly absent parents in order to increase the states' IV-D welfare caseload.



Nonexistent Eligibility Requirements for IV-D Welfare Isolate Children from Willing Parents

There are no limitations for participation, or eligibility requirements for recipients of the Title IV-D welfare program. This lack of eligibility requirements has been used to trap otherwise willing and fit parents, particularly of the middle-class, into participating in this program for the purpose of increasing federal reporting numbers. The forced inclusion of the middle-class maximizes the federal block grants being allocated for the operation of each state's Title IV-D welfare program. The Title IV-D welfare model isolates children from an otherwise willing custodian.



The lack of any eligibility requirements for Title IV-D welfare services has caused exponential growth within this welfare program as well as in private professional sectors. In fact, an entire industry has evolved from the creation of the federal CSE program, which will be discussed later in this document. This entire private industry generates even more money from involvement in domestic relations disputes - turning a delicate private family matter into a money-maker for both the private and public sectors.



The lack of any eligibility requirements gives a huge financial incentive to every state to include middle-class divorcing parents, and to isolate a child from an otherwise willing and fit parent. By including the middle-class, state family courts and associated state agencies have expanded the operation of their Title IV-D welfare programs well beyond needy families. This lack of eligibility has led to the near complete inclusion of the middle-class, which has given a benefit to the state of larger child support awards to be collected from an otherwise willing and fit parent. The result is that children are being isolated from physical contact with a willing parent in lieu of financial gains enjoyed by the other parent, and by the state - all through the issuance of a court order.



The states have resorted to forcing parents involved in domestic relations matters into the welfare system either as wards of the state or as welfare recipients, whether or not either parent has actually willfully abandoned the child or requires public assistance. After the parents are included into the operating Title IV-D welfare program, one parent is then groomed into a role of non-custodial or forcibly absent parent. A court order is then issued against the now absent parent to pay child support through a state disbursement unit to the other parent who may or may not be equipped financially to run their own household in the first place - despite the other parent's ability to maintain an intact loving and caring household.



Inclusion of Middle-Class into Welfare = More Federal Funding

The exponential inclusion of the middle-class into the state operated Title IV-D Welfare System has facilitated and furthered a perceived need for increased funding from the federal government to the states. Because there is an overwhelming majority of middle-class parents that have child support automatically withheld from their paychecks, there is the appearance of a tremendously successful state run Title IV-D welfare program - and it causes even more federal incentive payments and reimbursement funding to be received by the states.



Even amidst cutbacks by the federal government for entitlement block grants and restrictions on the use federal incentive dollars as matching funds, the states' standing remains to gain billions in funding by including more and more of the middle-class in their welfare programs.



To be more specific: We believe that Title IV welfare programs actually encourage the diminishment of parents' roles in the lives of their children, and that these programs actually provide financial incentives for the breakup of the family - which is incidentally the exact opposite of the purpose of Title IV in reducing family dependence on government and encouraging safe and stable families.



The consequence of how and why the states receive federal funding is providing financial incentives to the state, its agencies, its human services professionals, and its family courts in general to create court-ordered child-support paying absentee parents wherever it can, and by whatever means available. The states' manufacturing of non-custodial parents maximizes incoming federal and state revenue redistribution. Similar to those who were accused of abusing the Title IV-A welfare program, which prompted reform, the states are now modifying their own environment in order to receive more federal money.



Creating Non-Custodian = More Child Support = More Federal Funding

Title IV created incentives for the states that were intended to reduce the occurrence of single parent households; however these incentives have caused an exact opposite result. Instead of looking to Congressional intent, one only needs to look at the results.



State family court judges, agencies, and both public and private professionals now have a pecuniary interest in establishing single-parent households in which the majority of a child s time is limited by court order to be spent with only one parent. There is now a disincentive for a child to be equally placed with both parents where those parents share equal responsibilities while maintaining their own homes and lifestyles. If the state family courts do not produce an absent or non-custodial parent through their orders, the courts would effectively exempt the state (and any associated professional beneficiaries) from receiving the billions of dollars in federal funding which is offered through compliance with federally imposed welfare guidelines.



Federal Funding: A Working Perspective

The U.S. Tax Payer is solely supporting the middle-class's inclusion in the Title IV-D program because there is no reimbursement to welfare. For Fiscal Year 2006, Congress has appropriated $4,200,000,000 (4.2 billion dollars) from the collection of federal and Social Security taxes solely to fund the operations of federally compliant state IV-D welfare programs. Despite a commonly held public misconception that child support enforcement activities are funded by the people within the system, the fact is that this welfare program is funded with the money that comes from the U.S. Taxpayer in the form of federal and Social Security taxes.



The federal funding is based on the reported needs of the multitude of federal and state bureaucracies operating within the IV-D welfare program. The need is further amplified by increasing the number of forced absentee parents being generated from the family courts each year.



In fact, an entire national special interest lobby comprised of judges associations; national child support enforcement associations (representing both private and public sectors); state bar associations; labor unions representing government employees; social workers associations; and everyone else with a stake in the multi-billion-dollar industry that the Title IV-D welfare program has created, exists solely to ensure that the current annual flow of federal funding into the states continues increasingly and remains uninterrupted.



The U.S. tax payer is supporting two-thirds of the federal expenditures associated with the inclusion of the middle-class in the operation of the state Title IV-D programs. The remaining one-third of the expenses for the inclusion of the middle-class is left up to the state and local governments - which again, is paid for with taxpayer money. The bottom line is that the federal, state, and local governments are footing the bill with our tax dollars for the inclusion of the middle-class in the state operated Title IV-D welfare program.



Federal Reimbursement Funding

Out of the total $4.2 Billion appropriated by Congress for the operation of federally compliant state Title IV-D welfare program, there exists unchecked federal reimbursement funding to the states for the following: 66% of the costs of their Child Support Enforcement (CSE) operational activities (which range all the way down to the activities of each of the states county prosecutors in domestic relations and paternity cases); 80% of the states costs related to the improvement of technology as related to CSE activities; and, most recently changed to 66% from 90% for the costs of genetic DNA testing in paternity establishment cases.



Reimbursement funding has no performance standards or requirements, so even the most ill-performing state operated IV-D welfare programs still get federally reimbursed for their lackluster and ineffective operations.



The massive federal funding available to the states have led judicial discretion, government agencies, and professionals to establish that it is now in the best interests of the child to limit the child's involvement with one of their own otherwise willing, capable, and available parents.



In essence, the more cases involving Title IV-D welfare services that a court can create, the more operational expenses it will endure, and the more federal funding it will be able to pursue and receive as a reward for undermining a child's involvement with one of their own parents.





Performance Based Federal Incentive Funding

Title IV-D also provides performance-based federal incentive funding to the states based on certain criteria that is used to measure the states' performance of certain program functions.



Incentive funding comes from the total funding appropriated by Congress for the operation of the CSE program ($4.2 Billion). The total incentive funding available to the states is a fixed amount per fiscal year. For FY2006, the total available incentive funding is $458,000,000; and each participating state competes for a share of this total.



Each state competes based on their performance measure of the following criteria:



The paternity establishment performance level.

The support order performance level.

The current payment performance level.

The arrearage performance level.

The cost-effectiveness performance level.



Conclusion

As Robert Burns once wrote in To a Mouse:



The best laid schemes o mice an men gang aft agley (which is popularly misquoted as: The best laid plans of mice and men often go astray).



Mr. Burns concept seems to be applicable to Congress intentions in Title IV-D as the intentions sound good, but the result actually undermines the stated purpose of Title IV welfare services.



The U.S. Tax Payer, including the poor, is currently footing the bill for the inclusion of the middle-class into state operated Title IV-D welfare programs because of the lack of eligibility requirements in the federally imposed guidelines. In order to strengthen families, and to better meet the goals of Title IV, it is imperative for eligibility requirements to be included in the federal guidelines to the states. Without eligibility requirements, states will continue to have an incentive to limit children's involvement with an otherwise willing, caring, loving, and fit parent.



The states are currently undermining the purpose of Congress' Title IV, which is to keep families together. It's a commonly held belief that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions Congress' intent may have been well-meaning, but the result has created another welfare abuser... the states.

RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CIVIL RULESRule 3.11. Motions.

Rule 3.11. Motions.

RULES OF THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CIVIL RULES

Rule 3.11. Motions.

A. Motions for summary judgment shall be filed, defended and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of RSA 502-A:27-c and RSA 491:8-a as amended. Such motions and responses thereto shall provide specific page, paragraph, and line references to any pleadings, exhibits, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions, and affidavits filed with the court in support or opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Only such materials as are essential and specifically cited and referenced in the motion for summary judgment, responses, and supporting memoranda shall be filed with the court. In addition, except by permission of the court received in advance, no such motion, response, or supporting memorandum of law shall exceed twenty (20) double-spaced pages. The purpose of this rule is to avoid unnecessary and duplicative filing of materials with the court. Excerpts of documents and discovery materials shall be used whenever possible.

Where a plaintiff successfully moves for summary judgment on the issue of liability or a defendant concedes liability, the parties must provide the trial judge with a statement of agreed facts sufficient to explain the case to the jury and place it in a proper context so that the jurors might more readily understand what they will be hearing in the remaining portion of the trial. Absent such an agreement on facts, the matters of liability and damages cannot be severed.

If it appears to the court at any time that any motion for summary judgment, response, or affidavit has not been presented in good faith or has been presented solely for the purpose of delay, the court shall forthwith order the party and/or the attorney presenting it to pay to the other party the amount of the reasonable expenses which the filing of the motion, response, or affidavit caused the party to incur, including reasonable attorney's fees. Such additional sanctions may be imposed as justice may require.

B. Unless the opposing party requests a hearing upon any motion within ten days after the filing thereof, he shall be deemed to have waived hearing and the Court may act thereon.

C, D. Repealed.

E. (1) A motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be filed within ten (10) days of the date on the clerk's written notice of the order or decision which shall be mailed by the clerk on the date of the notice. The motion shall state, with particularity, points of law or fact that the Court has overlooked or misapprehended and shall contain such argument in support of the motion as the movant desires to present; but the motion shall not exceed ten (10) pages. A hearing on the motion shall not be permitted except by order of the Court.

(2) No answer to a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall be required unless ordered by the Court, but any answer or objection must be filed within ten (10) days of notification of the motion.

(3) If a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief is granted, the Court may revise its order or take other appropriate action without rehearing or may schedule a further hearing.

(4) The filing of a motion for reconsideration or other post-decision relief shall not stay any order of the Court unless, upon specific written request, the Court has ordered such a stay.

F. Any party filing a Motion for Summary Judgment shall provide the opposing party with notice, substantially as set forth in Form M, of the obligation to file an objection and supporting affidavit within 30 days.